A dedomenocracy fears nothing while a democracy fears everything. In this context, everything refers to the collective library of scientific knowledge. Nothing refers to the empty space that may harbor plans that we will can only learn by paying close attention to the present, allowing observations to contradict theories we accepted in the past.
There is a benefit to opening our processes to the possibility that the reality may be changing, where the changing is from an evolving intelligence or even from a plethora of competing intelligences that have transitions of power much like our political systems. Admitting dark data into our algorithms blinds us to this possibility, especially when we allow dark data to have priority over observations.
A government by data could consider the observations of iatrogenic complications and deaths. The public’s fear of a virus could grant this government permission to impose some new authoritarian policy that would do something, but that something would exploit the opportunity to improve the future prospects based on all observations of the current world. Such a government would be free to decide to tackle the problem of iatrogenesis instead of the problem of the virus. Fixing the overextension of medicine may ultimately benefit more people than overreacting to a virus that is not as threatening as the population perceived.
In a democracy, the declaration of an emergency is a declaration to freeze science, particularly in those areas that tend to predict the most pessimistic results if nothing is done. I suspect this is inevitable because a democracy selects specific individuals to be leaders, and human leadership demands steadfast determination to see a policy to completion and the install confidence of the population. Given the recent experience, this particular property of democracy raises doubts about a democracy’s ability to handle a new emergency that is inconsistent with established theories and the operational plans based on those theories.
The failure of the modern democratic governments is that none of these fundamental perspectives of the population were debated democratically. The irony is that the democratic government of elected officials presiding over unelected bureaucrats imposed these answers on the population. Instead of assessing the population’s sentiments on these questions, the democratic government cajoled the population into following the science, and to listen to the doctors. The science may be correct, and the doctors may be wise, but they might be answering the wrong questions.
Humans are not permitted to have watering hole experiences enjoyed freely by the rest of the animal kingdom and probably the plant kingdom as well. If left alone, we tend to restore the watering hole experience with a sense of relief of being open to strangers. Each time the collective society recognizes this happening, society finds an excuse to shut it down or to force some alternative.
All government funded scientists, whether through salary, contract, or grant, have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing science to support government policies. The strong bias is toward supporting those policies and avoiding any challenge to those policies.
The vaccine as a population placebo has to have a similar reaction on a population. The population-placebo vaccine has to have adverse effects normally associated with vaccines. There needs to be people who will suffer from reactions, and even some some people die from the vaccine. This would prove to the public that this is real, and if it is real, it might be effective. The placebo effect is on the entire population in order calm it back to something closer to normal.
The data exposes a flaw in our medical systems being unrealistically pessimistic about health risks, and about natural immunity capabilities. Our medical systems are overreacting out of a systemic hysteria of the entire discipline that increasingly believes that each day is the first day of the end of the world. In the particular disciplines of virology and epidemiology, the data raises serious doubts about whether these sciences are correct and mature enough to drive public policy. The evidence of this years experience points to these disciplines not being deserving of belonging to science.
There is a risk to mandating a single option for everyone. If that option would eventual start to show serious problems later on, everyone would face the risk of experiencing similar problems. Having a multitude of options available for different groups, and pursuing all of these could have a better overall outcome than focusing on the current objective of vaccinating everyone with a very new technology.
Hypothesis Discovery 